Current Events > Conservative MAN buys a Ticket to a WOMEN'S ONLY event for Wonder Woman!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

monkeysRfunny posted...

Kineth posted...

monkeysRfunny posted...

Hold on, what counter arguments are you talking about? I responded to your posts

"That's not what segregation is."

"I hope Kineth eventually dies out in this future where segregation is understand by my definition."

No, sir, you did not.

Are you joking? That's what you meant? It's not my definition; it's the literal definition of segregation.

That's not the legal definition of segregation and that doesn't violate the law as it's not segregatory since women are allowed to go to other screenings and men are allowed to go to those same other screenings too.
---

Would it be trolling if he identified as female?
---

ThePredominate posted...

Kineth posted...

Anyway, I don't feel discriminated against. What's your stake in this and why are you interested in there not being a special screening?

Well look, it's certainly not a big deal. And I'm not sure I'd call it discrimination either. But I dislike the notion it permeates... I don't like the idea of genders being treated differently. It's just a penis or vagina.

I'm pretty sure that plays a big part in why there is a character called Wonder Woman.

There doesn't need to be a girls only screening. I know genders are sometimes separated in sports and I'm going to call that an exception to what I'm saying as that isn't about gender and is more akin to sorting by weigh class.

There doesn't need to be, it's a special promotional product. It's not akin to competition where there's a set of rules for a level playing field. It's a company that wants to make money and that's what gets me. Most people who are on your side of the argument would be called conservatives, who usually have an interest in business autonomy and less regulation, etc. etc. and I'm on the pinko commie liberal side, who's supposed to be for business regulation and etc. etc.

I know neither of us are those caricatures, but the others are literally cutting off their noses to spite their face.

I think it just goes against the spirit of true equality. I don't believe in events that divide people. Why would a woman want to go to an event just because there's no men? That's what I want to know. There is no answer to that question which doesn't raise eyebrows.

Uh. Why do men like to hang out without their girlfriends and their wives? Don't you think girls want to hang out by themselves too?
---

BTW, i could imagine the literal SHITSTORM from SJW if a movie like 300 held an all male event
---

1NfamousACE_2 posted...

if a movie like 300 held an all male event

I'd laugh. That would either be a drunken mess or a terribly sad state of affairs.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

3rd_Best_Master posted...

So she accepted the rule about no men but didn't try to change it cause she respected the institution? ...So why would she do anything to oppose this theater?

1. She isn't able to change the rule since she isn't the queen
2. You don't need to try to actively end a law in order to oppose the principle.

She's not the proprietor of the theater either. If anything your argument suggests that she'd do more to respect his wish of having a female's only showing rather than actually do anything in opposition to it.
---

Kineth posted...

monkeysRfunny posted...

Kineth posted...

monkeysRfunny posted...

Hold on, what counter arguments are you talking about? I responded to your posts

"That's not what segregation is."

"I hope Kineth eventually dies out in this future where segregation is understand by my definition."

No, sir, you did not.

Are you joking? That's what you meant? It's not my definition; it's the literal definition of segregation.

That's not the legal definition of segregation and that doesn't violate the law as it's not segregatory since women are allowed to go to other screenings and men are allowed to go to those same other screenings too.

So it's not segregation because there are other options? Those screenings literally separate the sexes by keeping males out. Or can a restaurant say that they won't serve a sex if they have other ones open that will?
---

Kineth posted...

ThePredominate posted...

Kineth posted...

Anyway, I don't feel discriminated against. What's your stake in this and why are you interested in there not being a special screening?

Well look, it's certainly not a big deal. And I'm not sure I'd call it discrimination either. But I dislike the notion it permeates... I don't like the idea of genders being treated differently. It's just a penis or vagina.

I'm pretty sure that plays a big part in why there is a character called Wonder Woman.

There was no "mens night" when BatMan was airing. And nor should they have been. You say that's because men are already the larger slice of that audience but again, I find it hard to believe this is a marketing strategy, and if it is, its a bad one, as I said already, any reason a woman would have to attend an event where men aren't allowed is a bad reason. Like it was so insufferable to sit with everyone else.
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

So it's not segregation because there are other options? Those screenings literally separate the sexes by keeping males out. Or can a restaurant say that they won't serve a sex if they have other ones open that will?

A restaurant that doesn't provide food to men, at all, is a discriminatory business. It's not segregation because they don't have a male only seating section and so forth.

It's not segregation because they aren't doing male only screenings and it's not discriminatory because they allow men to buy their product. They're doing a one time promotional event for women. Once again, why do you not care that the business doesn't let children in? Why do you only care about men's interest in this?
---

mrduckbear posted...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/28/14/40E245BF00000578-0-image-a-11_1495979045287.jpg

This woman seems to be under the impression that woman have nothing else going for them.
---

It's not about men's interest, it's about the female double standard. They want equality, and apparently are showing it by keeping men out. And businesses that don't let kids in are almost always because it's illegal to participate in what the business is about. Kids can't drink alcohol, so they're not allowed in bars.
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

It's not about men's interest, it's about the female double standard.

Yeah, it's about men's interest because this is the business that's doing this, not people with 46 X chromosomes. At least you're a civil debater though.

Fair point about the kids, but why not have a special screening for kids that doesn't serve alcohol? Would that be discriminatory to adults? btw, they do this from time to time, at least for teenagers.
---

Kineth posted...

Uh. Why do men like to hang out without their girlfriends and their wives? Don't you think girls want to hang out by themselves too?

I think we're losing footing here Kineth. I don't know why you have the idea that "men" do that but I don't. I spend all my time with my girlfriend and there's no need for "guy time" or "girl time". There's just human time. We learned to like each others interests. You're a bad person if you can't even tolerate the presence of another gender. It shouldn't have an impact. And silly events like this are a sad example of that.
---

Kineth posted...

monkeysRfunny posted...

It's not about men's interest, it's about the female double standard.

Yeah, it's about men's interest because this is the business that's doing this, not people with 46 X chromosomes. At least you're a civil debater though.

Because so many feminists are showing their disdain of this. Yup, not a single lady voiced her support; no girl power and whatnot. No female workers were given preference that night over male solely because of their sex. Nope.
---

I wouldn't do it but I don't have a problem with him. A women's only screaming is kinda dumb
---

ThePredominate posted...

Kineth posted...

Uh. Why do men like to hang out without their girlfriends and their wives? Don't you think girls want to hang out by themselves too?

I think we're losing footing here Kineth. I don't know why you have the idea that "men" do that but I don't. I spend all my time with my girlfriend and there's no need for "guy time" or "girl time". There's just human time.

I don't know why you took offense to using the word men, to describe adult males, since that's the clientele of the business. I didn't say all males over 18 do it, but just because you don't do something doesn't mean it's conceivable that someone else may do it. I have friends that have dudes night out and I have friends that, like you, spend all their time with their SO. I personally think always being with your SO can lead to codependency, but that doesn't mean it always does.

We learned to like each others interests. You're a bad person if you can't even tolerate the presence of another gender. It shouldn't have an impact. And silly events like this are a sad example of that.

I mean, I agree that makes somebody a bad person, but I think that's an unfair evaluation of all the customers.
---

Oh, and that alcohol thing. If they specifically said no adults could go to their non-alcoholic minors night or whatever, then yes, that's discrimination, as they're banning people for a factor out of their control.
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

Kineth posted...

monkeysRfunny posted...

It's not about men's interest, it's about the female double standard.

Yeah, it's about men's interest because this is the business that's doing this, not people with 46 X chromosomes. At least you're a civil debater though.

Because so many feminists are showing their disdain of this. Yup, not a single lady voiced her support; no girl power and whatnot.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. To suggest that no one had a positive reception to this when MRAs can't help but paint feminists (aka any woman who has a strong opinion) only by the extremes, with no possibility of a diverse set of opinions? I mean, since when have MRAs given credit to anything a "feminist" said.

No female workers were given preference that night over male solely because of their sex. Nope.

Ok, that's an interesting hypothesis with no support. That would certainly be an illegal business practice, but it's very likely that the crew would just watch it together.
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

Oh, and that alcohol thing. If they specifically said no adults could go to their non-alcoholic minors night or whatever, then yes, that's discrimination, as they're banning people for a factor out of their control.

I mean discriminating by not serving them alcohol in a select theater.
---

Kineth posted...

Don't blow smoke up my ass. To suggest that no one had a positive reception to this when MRAs can't help but paint feminists (aka any woman who has a strong opinion) only by the extremes, with no possibility of a diverse set of opinions? I mean, since when have MRAs given credit to anything a "feminist" said.

Obviously some people had positive reactions, just as people had negative reactions. And it doesn't help the extreme feminist stereotype when so many of them are screaming for what they want.

Kineth posted...

Ok, that's an interesting hypothesis with no support. That would certainly be an illegal business practice, but it's very likely that the crew would just watch it together.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/entertainment/wonder-woman-women-only/

Support.

Kineth posted...

I mean discriminating by not serving them alcohol in a select theater.

If you mean like they'll give kids drinks but not adults, then that's discrimination. If you meant something else, then you lost me, because the comparison has veered too far off course.
---

I didn't take offense to you using the word men @Kineth, I just put it in quotes because I was unsure ultimately how common the behavior you described was. I'm in agreement with you that none of this is particularly pressing, I doubt I would have gatecrashed the event like the gent in the story - I'd just rather they didn't have such events.

I'm going to rest my case but not before I thank you for being an engaging person to debate with. I have high respect for your good articulation and level head.
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

Obviously some people had positive reactions, just as people had negative reactions. And it doesn't help the extreme feminist stereotype when so many of them are screaming for what they want.

I personally don't care what extremists of any type have to say if especially if they're incapable of any sort of moderation on any opinion. It's also unfair to suggest that the extreme branch of a group represents the rest of the group because then it leads to fair assessments of what the group actually wants. Who rallies for this cause of women's only movie screenings as a political pull?

Either way, a feminist having an opinion still doesn't make this legal segregation or discrimination.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/entertainment/wonder-woman-women-only/

Support.

I'm pretty sure men were still allowed to work in the other theaters. Once again, not discrimination, let alone segregation.

If you mean like they'll give kids drinks but not adults, then that's discrimination. If you meant something else, then you lost me, because the comparison has veered too far off course.

No, I mean like how there's a special clause where you can't purchase a product for a specific time and location within the business, like in a children's only screening. Someone in another theater gets to get served alcohol, but you can't because you're in a separate theater for the same movie that's meant for kids? That's age-based discrimination under your definition. In both scenarios, all customers can choose to purchase a different showing or night for the product.
---

ThePredominate posted...

I'm going to rest my case but not before I thank you for being an engaging person to debate with. I have high respect for your good articulation and level head.

Likewise, @ThePredominate. Honestly, pretty rare form on both sides for a debate on CE.
---

Kineth posted...

I'm pretty sure men were still allowed to work in the other theaters. Once again, not discrimination, let alone segregation.

Only women are working that screening

Kineth posted...

No, I mean like how there's a special clause where you can't purchase a product for a specific time and location within the business, like in a children's only screening. Someone in another theater gets to get served alcohol, but you can't because you're in a separate theater for the same movie that's meant for kids? That's age-based discrimination under your definition. In both scenarios, all customers can choose to purchase a different showing or night for the product.

See here's the thing. The fact that there are other options does not erase the fact that they are saying that if you have a penis, you can't go to that showing. Theaters are included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so they can't do what they're doing now. It wouldn't be okay to make a whites-only showing, just because there are other screenings.
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

Kineth posted...

I'm pretty sure men were still allowed to work in the other theaters. Once again, not discrimination, let alone segregation.

Only women are working that screening

So? The basis to call this discrimination would be that a person is being refused hours because they are male. Having staffing just happen to be all female for 2 to 3 hours in one theater? Not discrimination and honestly, I still don't get why you give a shit about this.

See here's the thing. The fact that there are other options does not erase the fact that they are saying that if you have a penis, you can't go to that showing.

No, they said that if you don't identify as a female, you aren't allowed. Pre-op transgendered people would be allowed.

Theaters are included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so they can't do what they're doing now. It wouldn't be okay to make a whites-only showing, just because there are other screenings.

Once again, they can and people could do that if they made sure that everyone else was allowed to view a separate screening. Thing is, that'd be a dumb business practice/business suicide, but businesses do have the right to refuse service and I still fail to see how one special showing of a movie is discrimination beyond playing with semantics. Access to the product isn't restricted because of the special showing because everyone else can access it at future showings.

Once again, not legal discrimination, let alone segregation and honestly, to suggest that this is what real impacting segregation and discrimination look like when your political peers can't be quick enough to discount discrimination and segregation in something that actually impacts people's lives, like getting arrested, getting shot and so forth is why your position doesn't receive much agreement, from me at least.
---

Disrespector posted...

He looks exactly what I thought he'd look like

Pretty much.

Also, Wonder Woman looks amazing. Can't wait.
---

Kineth posted...

So? The basis to call this discrimination would be that a person is being refused hours because they are male. Having staffing just happen to be all female for 2 to 3 hours in one theater? Not discrimination and honestly, I still don't get why you give a shit about this.

It literally is. Males have less hours (which is more than 2-3, since there are two showings) just because they're male.

Kineth posted...

No, they said that if you don't identify as a female, you aren't allowed. Pre-op transgendered people would be allowed.

FFS, that's the part you take literally? After all this debate I figured you would understand what I meant and I wouldn't need to spell it out.

Kineth posted...

Once again, they can and people could do that if they made sure that everyone else was allowed to view a separate screening. Thing is, that'd be a dumb business practice/business suicide, but businesses do have the right to refuse service and I still fail to see how one special showing of a movie is discrimination beyond playing with semantics. Access to the product isn't restricted because of the special showing because everyone else can access it at future showings.

Once again, not legal discrimination, let alone segregation and honestly, to suggest that this is what real impacting segregation and discrimination look like when your political peers can't be quick enough to discount discrimination and segregation in something that actually impacts people's lives, like getting arrested, getting shot and so forth is why your position doesn't receive much agreement, from me at least.

Access to the product is temporarily restricted due to an uncontrollable factor. Length of time bears no weight; people are protected from discrimination. And tell me that saying "You have to go to a different theater because you're a guy" isn't discrimination. It's not like it's a ladies locker room. It's a public accommodation that's supposed to be open to everyone. And please don't bring up discrimination about stuff like getting shot or arrested. That's a whole other subject that BLM craps on.
---

Lmao, half this board needs to get laid. Bad. Though I suspect that's the problem causing all this misogynistic bitterness in the first place.
---

I have to wonder where Mal_Fet went.

monkeysRfunny posted...

Kineth posted...

So? The basis to call this discrimination would be that a person is being refused hours because they are male. Having staffing just happen to be all female for 2 to 3 hours in one theater? Not discrimination and honestly, I still don't get why you give a shit about this.

It literally is. Males have less hours (which is more than 2-3, since there are two showings) just because they're male.

Tap the brakes. There are other theaters in the same cinema where the positions that the crew working this select theater would have vacated, so others on staff could fill them.

FFS, that's the part you take literally? After all this debate I figured you would understand what I meant and I wouldn't need to spell it out.

No, I took it literally because you were painting a false narrative. I understood what you're trying to suggest and I'm not buying it.

Access to the product is temporarily restricted due to an uncontrollable factor. Length of time bears no weight; people are protected from discrimination.

If you think it doesn't, that's not my concern, but having access to the same product earlier or later in the day is definitely relevant.

And tell me that saying "You have to go to a different theater because you're a guy" isn't discrimination. It's not like it's a ladies locker room. It's a public accommodation that's supposed to be open to everyone.

"Hey, you have access to this product at all times, except for this select screening." It's not discrimination.

And please don't bring up discrimination about stuff like getting shot or arrested. That's a whole other subject that BLM craps on.

It's a very relevant subject given how you actually don't have a clue what discrimination or segregation is if you think that subject is one that is unworthy of being discussed.

gtfo with this bullshit and get back on your main.
---

You know what, never mind. I'm through talking. You'll never understand my views and I'll never understand your views, so let's just call that a middle ground.
---

Reminder that Kineth once argued vehemently that dogs cannot feel satisfaction and happiness lol
---

mrduckbear posted...

Stephen also referred to the new film as "Chris Pine superhero movie" and ignoring the fact that this is the first comic book movie inspired by a woman since Elektra.

Troll. Nothing more to see here.

There's a big difference between hosting an event for a certain group of people and categorically refusing service to said group as part of business policy.
---

I mean, he is trolling for sure. But imagine the outrage if there was a "Men-only" screening of the next Superman movie.

Kineth posted...

RedCubix posted...

Vicious_Dios posted...

TheMikh posted...

I applaud him.

When businesses and other institutions participate in "progressive" forms of segregation, they re-legitimize all forms of segregation, which people fought, bled, and died to put an end to in the past. Public policy evolves to adapt to changes in the status quo, regardless of what it may be.

This. So fucking much.

Yup, is spot on.

What y'all don't get is that the purpose of this is get a bigger female audience into liking comic books and y'all's feelings are directly counter to inclusion. It's literally for the opposite purpose of segregation. Segregation is a word that is related to a systematic discriminatory policy. A business is allowed to choose who they serve to and what clients are allowed. To suggest this suggests that a VIP room is segregated against the poor. Terrible logic. To suggest this would mean that the business as whole does not serve men. Not true. To suggest this means this is happening in more than one spot. Once again, not true.

You guys are some babies, for real.

Ok you've convinced me. Anything that makes chicks like comic books more is good by me.

Lol a conservative invoking gender discrimination laws in his favor.
---

BignutzisBack posted...

Reminder that Kineth once argued vehemently that dogs cannot feel satisfaction and happiness lol

Oh, so you're the main of that account that has tried to perpetuate this lie. It's very likely that you aren't the main either. Seriously though, I'll save myself the time, you got any proof?

Also, are you scared of actually holding an argument with me? Is that why you decide to choose libel and trying to discredit my character because that's the only way you can hope that my arguments aren't gonna be taken seriously?
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

You know what, never mind. I'm through talking. You'll never understand my views and I'll never understand your views, so let's just call that a middle ground.

Well, you were at least more polite than some of the others on this board and did a decent job at acknowledging what was said. Really shouldn't be a point worthy of praise, but the bar has really been set that low here.
---

Kineth posted...

BignutzisBack posted...

Reminder that Kineth once argued vehemently that dogs cannot feel satisfaction and happiness lol

Oh, so you're the main of that account that has tried to perpetuate this lie. It's very likely that you aren't the main either. Seriously though, I'll save myself the time, you got any proof?

Also, are you scared of actually holding an argument with me? Is that why you decide to choose libel and trying to discredit my character because that's the only way you can hope that my arguments aren't gonna be taken seriously?

Nah dude this is my main and I have been saying it on this account the whole time, I'm not trying to argue on this topic with you I'm just saying you have defended incredibly stupid viewpoints into the ground before
---

BignutzisBack posted...

Nah dude this is my main and I have been saying it on this account the whole time, I'm not trying to argue on this topic with you I'm just saying you have defended incredibly stupid viewpoints into the ground before

It wasn't this account that previously suggested this (EDIT: I mean another account accused me of that). As I said to them, IF I did take that position in the past, I sure as shit wouldn't hold it or defend it now. But it's an outright lie so using that as a way to discredit me is, well, sad. So read my sig and cling to your belief that I'm a terrible dog hating person.
---

The hypocrisy in this topic is truly astounding to see. I wonder how many of you would be crying a river if someone tried to host a "Men's Only" screening for a movie. Or maybe let's go further... "Whites Only" "Blacks Only". Why stop at Women?

Some of you people are a joke.
---

Kineth posted...

Uh. Why do men like to hang out without their girlfriends and their wives?

the honest answer to this question tends to raise eyebrows
---

Darkman124 posted...

Kineth posted...

Uh. Why do men like to hang out without their girlfriends and their wives?

the honest answer to this question tends to raise eyebrows

<_<

Yeah, but it does in the reverse situation as well.
---

I can't believe anyone is defending this guy.

He's an asshole.

I've been to. Guys night out events. Girls night out events exist. Let's fight against ladies nights at bars next!

This guy is pissed off at chick's because he can't get laid. He then does some shit like this to show how much he's oppressed and this in turn continues the trend of him not getting laid.

Honestly you can argue back and forth about the law and what's legal and what's segregation and all that.

I'll take the simple approach. A female superhero movie is coming out. Not many of those come out. Some teenager working in a theater for 8 bucks an hour said hey it's a female superhero let's have a ladies night showing for just the girls. I bet that'll be fun. Then some shut in neck beard decided to be a dick about it for no reason.

It was innocent and he was a dick for no reason. We don't need the aclu or a constitutional convention. We need people to learn to act with a little common sense.
---

mrduckbear posted...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/28/14/40E245D100000578-0-image-a-8_1495978743588.jpg

I don't see the problem with this logic? I'm against all manner of racial and sexual discrimination

Except this isn't discrimination against men. It's not "against" anything at all and if you think that way then you're brain is twisted. It's a step up for women to reach that equality to men.
---

DesertPenguin09 posted...

Except this isn't discrimination against men. It's not "against" anything at all and if you think that way then you're brain is twisted. It's a step up for women to reach that equality to men.

What equality? I'd be against male-only showings as well

DesertPenguin09 posted...

Except this isn't discrimination against men. It's not "against" anything at all and if you think that way then you're brain is twisted. It's a step up for women to reach that equality to men.

Reach equality? How many male-only showings of movies have you heard of?
---

Ever heard of this thing called all of history? Mankind? It's called making up for lost time.
---

DesertPenguin09 posted...

Ever heard of this thing called all of history? Mankind? It's called making up for lost time.

Until very recently "man" was synonymous with all people. It's not an exclusionary term.
---